I'm probably missing something but a lot of the Peertracks / Bitshares Music project has been hush hush for a while in order to protect the 'secret sauce' business model, which I can understand.

What I don't understand is why Peertracks would attend MIDEM, which is full of industry monopolists and entrenched parties who's only interest would be to undermine and destroy any new initiative that might threaten them. What is the thinking behind the attendance? What is Peertracks seeking to gain from MIDEM? Wouldn't a release of the product and viral acceptance by artists & fans be the preferred method of adoption?

I don't think you need to reveal anything that should remain secret in order to give the community (or just me) some insight into the final release & adoption strategy. I am very excited about this project, I hope you can forgive my natural concern for what comes next.....

I just talked to cedric about the need for another update specifically to discuss the roadmap, maybe during or before midem. We will also probably release at least a summary of what we said to the public at midem.

Logged

Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

I just talked to cedric about the need for another update specifically to discuss the roadmap, maybe during or before midem. We will also probably release at least a summary of what we said to the public at midem.

For the record, I'm not at all convinced by "secret sauce". The idea seems to go like this:

1. If the music industry hears about our plans they will recognise their brilliance and steal them. The music industry has the capability and the will to do what we are doing, they just haven't had the great idea we have had yet.2. If the music industry heard about the PeerTracks music business model or software architecture etc. they could revolutionise the music industry for the benefit of artists instead of us!3. Therefore we have to keep the idea secret until we demonstrate it is effective by getting artists on board.4. The music industry, though they have such resources to compete with us if we tell them the idea, cannot possibly catch us once we get a few months lead time to build the system.

There are several things wrong with this line of reasoning but everyone here seems to take it on face value without question.

I can go into more detail if anyone is interested. Of course if I have something wrong here please let me know.

For the record, I'm not at all convinced by "secret sauce". The idea seems to go like this:

1. If the music industry hears about our plans they will recognise their brilliance and steal them. The music industry has the capability and the will to do what we are doing, they just haven't had the great idea we have had yet.2. If the music industry heard about the PeerTracks music business model or software architecture etc. they could revolutionise the music industry for the benefit of artists instead of us!3. Therefore we have to keep the idea secret until we demonstrate it is effective by getting artists on board.4. The music industry, though they have such resources to compete with us if we tell them the idea, cannot possibly catch us once we get a few months lead time to build the system.

There are several things wrong with this line of reasoning but everyone here seems to take it on face value without question.

I can go into more detail if anyone is interested. Of course if I have something wrong here please let me know.

The only thing that you got wrong, imho, is that 'everyone here seems to take it on face value without question *'. I see a lot of people dumping NOTES presumably having same/similar concerns.Now, the peertrack people will tell you it was/is the plan all along, but I for one do not buy that company line.

* This community have a very strong tendency to be what I call "Public pumpers/Private dumpers" bunch. This is true for the society as a whole, but is more prevailing here, if you have not noticed by now.

« Last Edit: June 02, 2015, 07:07:18 am by tonyk »

Logged

Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

For the record, I'm not at all convinced by "secret sauce". The idea seems to go like this:

1. If the music industry hears about our plans they will recognise their brilliance and steal them. The music industry has the capability and the will to do what we are doing, they just haven't had the great idea we have had yet.2. If the music industry heard about the PeerTracks music business model or software architecture etc. they could revolutionise the music industry for the benefit of artists instead of us!3. Therefore we have to keep the idea secret until we demonstrate it is effective by getting artists on board.4. The music industry, though they have such resources to compete with us if we tell them the idea, cannot possibly catch us once we get a few months lead time to build the system.

There are several things wrong with this line of reasoning but everyone here seems to take it on face value without question.

I can go into more detail if anyone is interested. Of course if I have something wrong here please let me know.

Christo, are you questioning the existence of a disruptive business model or Peertracks ability to execute? the issue here is that we are having to make assumptions based on limited information and you quite rightly point out that what we have gleaned is incomplete. I think a lot of questions have been asked and the sense that the community seems to have been willing to accept very little information is about trust.

I believe peertracks has a new business model, powered by Bitshares and they have been doing their best to build the platform and stay ahead of the competition. My biggest concern is around what happens once the time for secrecy has passed. It will become clear pretty quickly if they have succeeded in building a disruptive business model and if they have failed, then we try again.

For the record, I'm not at all convinced by "secret sauce". The idea seems to go like this:

1. If the music industry hears about our plans they will recognise their brilliance and steal them. The music industry has the capability and the will to do what we are doing, they just haven't had the great idea we have had yet.2. If the music industry heard about the PeerTracks music business model or software architecture etc. they could revolutionise the music industry for the benefit of artists instead of us!3. Therefore we have to keep the idea secret until we demonstrate it is effective by getting artists on board.4. The music industry, though they have such resources to compete with us if we tell them the idea, cannot possibly catch us once we get a few months lead time to build the system.

There are several things wrong with this line of reasoning but everyone here seems to take it on face value without question.

I can go into more detail if anyone is interested. Of course if I have something wrong here please let me know.

The only thing that you got wrong, imho, is that 'everyone here seems to take it on face value without question *'. I see a lot of people dumping NOTES presumably having same/similar concerns.Now, the peertrack people will tell you it was/is the plan all along, but I for one do not buy that company line.

* This community have a very strong tendency to be what I call "Public pumpers/Private dumpers" bunch. This is true for the society as a whole, but is more prevailing here, if you have not noticed by now.

Why do you have to generalise about the community? Are you talking about active forum members or anyone with a stake in bitshares products?

Would you mind clarifying what you believe the Peertracks plan is? It sounds like you are saying that they have openly stated that they want to lower the price of notes and are being secretive to achieve that, not to protect a disruptive business model that is susceptible to entrenched competition.

For the record, I'm not at all convinced by "secret sauce". The idea seems to go like this:

1. If the music industry hears about our plans they will recognise their brilliance and steal them. The music industry has the capability and the will to do what we are doing, they just haven't had the great idea we have had yet.2. If the music industry heard about the PeerTracks music business model or software architecture etc. they could revolutionise the music industry for the benefit of artists instead of us!3. Therefore we have to keep the idea secret until we demonstrate it is effective by getting artists on board.4. The music industry, though they have such resources to compete with us if we tell them the idea, cannot possibly catch us once we get a few months lead time to build the system.

There are several things wrong with this line of reasoning but everyone here seems to take it on face value without question.

I can go into more detail if anyone is interested. Of course if I have something wrong here please let me know.

Christo, are you questioning the existence of a disruptive business model or Peertracks ability to execute? the issue here is that we are having to make assumptions based on limited information and you quite rightly point out that what we have gleaned is incomplete. I think a lot of questions have been asked and the sense that the community seems to have been willing to accept very little information is about trust.

I believe peertracks has a new business model, powered by Bitshares and they have been doing their best to build the platform and stay ahead of the competition. My biggest concern is around what happens once the time for secrecy has passed. It will become clear pretty quickly if they have succeeded in building a disruptive business model and if they have failed, then we try again.

The project members have chosen not to tell us the true status of the project in any detail because of fear of competition. How revolutionary can this "new business model" really be if it needs to be protected by secrecy? It must be something that is very easily reproducible by the music industry.

Not a good sign.

After watching this project for about 8 months (and they have been going well over a year) with no software releases I am being drawn to the conclusion that Peertracks is basically using the money raised to build proprietary software which they own 100% and they are neglecting to invest any significant time into a BitShares music blockchain or "distributed automated company" for music which this forum is supposed to be about.

Who exactly is being paid with the money raised? Is any money left? Is there going to be any open source software released or is EVERYTHING A SECRET?

We hear about promotional activity but no engineering detail. We hear about music industry event MIDEM, we hear the podcast interviews rack up. Lots of talk. No software has been released. No beta program has launched. No source code with anything to do with music is even visible.

Why? Oh yeah secret sauce. I'm not convinced.

Now, it's possible in theory that the team is totally capable of executing and they really do believe that they cannot release anything until they have some kind of first-mover advantage against the music industry. But they are asking people who are paying their bills to believe them without any apparent obligation to even answer basic questions about their operation. I don't consider this honourable behaviour and I don't respect it.

I think it's fair to say the majority of stakeholders have been willing to trust the Peertracks project team. There is absolutely nothing wrong with requesting information but i think it would be a shame to assume the worst and to judge them before they've had an opportunity to showcase what they have achieved.

Just because they wanted to keep their cards close does not necessarily mean that the software or business model is easy to replicate. However, even if it was difficult to replicate, enough resource could be thrown at a problem to to make that an insignificant issue. Either way, clearly timing releases of both product & information was deemed to be important.

We are all able to express our relative confidence by buying/selling notes so no problem there. Personally, i will hold my position until i know more and will continue to trust the project team.

My interest is not in investment of notes or picking which artists are going to be most popular. My primary interest is in an efficient, equitable and economically viable music distribution and commerce system.

My interest is not in investment of notes or picking which artists are going to be most popular. My primary interest is in an efficient, equitable and economically viable music distribution and commerce system.

I completely agree with you. This is my primary interest too, but even more than that, i don't care about the viability of one project over another. All I care about is that blockchain tech succeeds somewhere and that the psychopaths are marginalised so humanity can become civilized with 'an efficient, equitable and economically viable' planet.

I don't know if Peertracks has spent all their funds wisely or have built everything they promised or what they've built will work as intended but i hope so and I will support them until i find out otherwise. I understand your concerns and share some of them. Toast has promised us an update that is long overdue, let's give them the benefit of doubt until then.

Now more than ever I think there needs to be a project to build a viable alternative to music distribution and commerce and I am starting to think that Peertracks, BitShares Music whatever you want to call it - this project - is not it.

I hope you don't misunderstand me, i care if resources have been wasted, but we can use the Bitshares toolkit to build what we need if a project fails to deliver. The cost of doing so should rapidly fall.